Case No. – 4072/2016
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH: Hon’ble Mr. C.V. Sirpurkar J.
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 28 March 2016
RELEVANT ACTS/SECTIONS:
Section 9 of the wildlife protection act 1972 (Prohibition for hunting)
Section 39 of the wildlife protection act 1972 (Wild animals, etc., to be Government property)
Section 51 of the wildlife protection act 1972 (Penalties)
Section 52 of the wildlife protection act 1972 (Attempts and abatements)
Section 439 of Cr.P.C. 1973 (Special power of the high court or court of the session regarding bail)
BACKSTORY
This was the application for bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. documented for the benefit of the applicant Ramdayal Loni in Forest Crime No.21/2008 enrolled by Forest Range Officer Jorhat, District-Sidhi in Criminal Case No.538/2013 enlisted under Sections 9, 39, 51 and 52 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. According to the indictment case, candidate Ramdayal Loni and other co-blamed people plotted and killed a mouse deer on 11.09.2010 by utilizing guns and after killing the mouse deer, they circulated its meat. The property identified with the offence was seized from the possession of co-blamed Ram Lakhan who is said to have died since.
Learned advice for the applicant had presented that the candidate was arrested on 11.02.2016. He had no past criminal record. The offence was triable by JMFC and the preliminary was probably going to require significant investment; in this manner, it has been implored that candidate Ramdayal Loni discharged on bail.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State, then again, presents that the offence goes back to 11.09.2010. The candidate had been departing suddenly from that point onward and was arrested distinctly on 11.02.2016. His application for expectant bail was excused on 24.03.2015. The complicity and prime role of the candidate in the wrongdoing were built up based on the announcement of Sadanand Loni. The charge-sheet for the situation was to be documented; therefore, it has been supplicated that the application is dismissed.
Keeping in view the realities and conditions of the case completely, especially the way that the candidate had been absconding away since the time the year 2010, his prime role in the offence and the way that the charge-sheet was to be documented, the candidate didn’t have the right to be discharged at that stage
JUDGEMENT
The first application for bail documented for the benefit of the applicant Ramdayal was dismissed.